Wallem Philippines Shipping v SR Farms

FACTS: Continental Enterprises loaded on board the vessel at Bedi Bunder, India, a shipment of Indian
Soya Bean Meal, for transportation and delivery to Manila, with plaintiff (herein respondent) as
consignee/notify party. The said shipment is said to weigh 1,100 metric tons and covered by a bill of
lading. The vessel is owned and operated by defendant Conti-Feed, with defendant (herein
petitioner)Wallem as its ship agent.

Thereafter, the shipment was discharged and transferred into the custody of the receiving barges. A
cargo check of the subject shipment was made where it was discovered that there was an estimated
shortage of 80.467 metric tons.

Respondent then filed a Complaint for damages against Conti-Feed. Thereafter, it filed an Amended
Complaint which impleaded Wallem Philippines, petitioner herein. The RTC dismissed the complaint but
was reversed by the CA hence the case at bar.

Petitioner’s Arguments: Petitioner claims that pursuant to Section 3 (6) of the COGSA, respondent
should have filed its Notice of Loss within 3 days from delivery. It asserts that respondent failed to file
any written notice of claim. Petitioner also avers that, pursuant to the same provision of the COGSA,
respondents claim had already prescribed because the complaint for damages was filed more than one
year after the shipment was discharged.

ISSUE: WON the claim was timely filed – NO. It was not timely filed

RULING: With respect to the prescriptive period involving claims arising from shortage, loss of or
damage to cargoes sustained during transit, the law that governs the instant case is the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), Section 3 (6) of which provides:

Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the
carrier or his agent at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody
of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima
facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or
damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within 3 days of delivery. Xxx

In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage
unless suit is brought within 1 year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have
been delivered; Provided, That, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given
as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit
within 1 year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

Under Section 3 (6) of the COGSA, notice of loss or damages must be filed within three days of delivery.
Admittedly, respondent did not comply with this provision.

Under the same provision, however, a failure to file a notice of claim within 3 days will not bar recovery
if a suit is nonetheless filed within one year from delivery of the goods or from the date when the goods
should have been delivered.

There is no dispute that the vessel carrying the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on April 11, 1992
and that the cargo was completely discharged therefrom on April 15, 1992. However, respondent erred
in arguing that the complaint for damages, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, was filed on March 11,
1993.

As the records would show, petitioner was not impleaded as a defendant in the original complaint filed
on March 11, 1993. It was only on June 7, 1993 that the Amended Complaint, impleading petitioner as
defendant, was filed.

The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the
original; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment.

It is true that, as an exception, this Court has held that an amendment which merely supplements and
amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the
action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original
complaint. The exception, however, would not apply to the party impleaded for the first time in the
amended complaint.

In the instant case, petitioner was only impleaded in the amended Complaint of June 7, 1993, or 1 year,
1 month and 23 days from April 15, 1992, the date when the subject cargo was fully unloaded from the
vessel. Hence, reckoned from April 15, 1992, the one-year prescriptive period had already lapsed.